[clang-tools-extra] r215839 - First version of a clang-rename tool.

[Manuel Klimek]

On Mon Aug 18 2014 at 11:20:14 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun Aug 17 2014 at 11:43:39 PM Rafael Espíndola <
>> rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Note that we do want to migrate (most of) clang-format's tests to lit
>>> tests
>>> > (because most of them are integration tests), but that's a different
>>> topic.
>>>
>>> Well, that was the topic of my reply :-)
>>>
>>> When gtest is appropriate, do use it. My request was just to not build
>>> another large test set that we want to migrate in the future.
>>>
>>
>> Then we agree! :) Please give specific feedback if you see a gtest test
>> that you think should be a lit test!
>>
>>
>
> In this case, it seems like you should write a unit test for the routine
> that uses the offsets to actually do the renaming. Then you can write this
> test as a lit test that checks that the relevant things get renamed.
>

Yes, the routine that finds what is under the cursor is unit tested, the
rename is lit tested. I'm not sure how that differs from what you're
describing.


> Also, why are we committing code that is "grossly under-tested" in the
> first place? (sorry if this was discussed in another thread)
>

a) it was a little tongue-in-cheek from my side (mainly meaning that I
think we should focus the next steps on the testing first, before adding
more features)
b) I'm generally fine with incremental development in-tree (especially for
leaf projects)


>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rafael
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140819/f912043c/attachment.html>